IO MB Noa 0704-0788 ouclitc reoorting burOen for this collection of 'orrmatron is sstiina!ec to average I hou' oer ;esOnn. including the time for reviewing ins$ru•t•crs searzno e %I n. ZjA* 7 %t-t gathering and maintaining the data needed. ..'d corriweting ine e.e-erqg tre collietion of information. Send comments reoaroing trnu orde-1 esMate cr 3.. :!.e' asoel Z" cellect~on .f ,nto'matiOn, ncluaing suggestons for reaucinc :".s ouroeC t. NVashngton Heaaouarte,$ Services. Directorate for information Ooeratic¢s anc Recc-. Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited.
ABSTRACT (Maximum 200 words)This review analyzes the arguments for and against using various methods of force motion cuing in land-vehicle and aircraft simulators.Research literature was reviewed and opinions were solicited from 31 authorities, 24 of whom replied.Analysis of the literature and of the reasons given by the authorities for and against the use of force motion cuing indicated the following:(1) No transfer of training data support using motion-based rather than fixed-base simulators; (2) the absence of supporting data may be due to the unknown characteristics of motion used in transfer research, safety considerations that preclude conducting definitive transfer of training experiments, and deficiencies in experiments that lead to inadequate statistical power; and (3) objective examination of the effects of force motion cuing on transfer to land vehicles and aircraft requires developing and using reliable and safe tests for assessing the performance of tasks that cannot safely be performed in parent vehicles.In the absence of transfer data demonstrating the superiority of fixed-based or motion-based simulators, analyses to identify discriminative stimuli are recommended.The report presents algorithms for deciding for which tasks the
Army Project Number Training Simulation 20263007A795Approved for public release: disributi is unlmited.
In
FOREWORDThe U.S. Amy Project Manager for Training Devices (PM TRADE) and PM TRADE engineers requested the assistance of the U.S. Amy Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences (ARI) in determining motion requirements for land-vehicle and aircraft simulators. In response to those requests, ARI's John A. Boldovici reviewed research articles and analyzed the arguments for and against force motion cuing given in interviews and correspondence with 24 simulator-motion authorities. The analyses led Dr. Boldovici to conclude that research results are insufficient to support decisions about whether to use force motion cuing in land-vehicle and aircraft simulators, and that additional research on transfer from simulators to parent vehicles cannot resolve the issue. The reasons involve the negligible practical value of research results that show no differences in transfer based on using and not using motion in training and the infeasibility of reproducing dangerous tasks in parent vehicles for purposes of conducting transfer research. In lieu of relying on the results of necessarily inconclusiv...